campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Consistency
Basing political ideology on the Liberal/Conservative construct makes no sense (other than the fact that the two major political parties identify themselves with these labels). There is no continuum of thought that runs from liberal to conservative. The real continuum runs from individualism to collectivism. In a pefect world, any point along that continuum would be perfect. The world isn't perfect. True consistency would be based on where one's ideology falls on the continuum. If you align more toward collectivism, you would generally support more socialistic policies (i.e., more government control). One cannot be consistent if one supports more government control of personal property (e.g., higher taxes, more government spending) and doesn't support more government control of personal activities (e.g., war on drugs, marriage amendment). If one aligns more toward individualism, one would generally support lower taxes and less government spending. It would not be consistent to also support laws restricting flag burning and pornography. Until the parties align along a true continuum, political confusion will continue. PacoTex :One error I see is pretty common. It's when people consider government to be some outside entity. With that mode of thought, government oppression, big government, and all the other memes of thought that seem to define our current political and media landscape make sense. What we fail to recognize, and fail to articulate is that the Government is us. We have the right, indeed the duty, to change governments that don't respond to our needs. :I align very much towards individualism. However, I ride the bus provided for me by a government agency under the oversight of elected members of a legislative body that I helped to elect, and have the right to contact whenever my needs are not being met. I only work for candidates or agree to support candidates that promise to listen to me and address those needs. The only way I can be an individual is when I help to build a society and a community that I am comfortable in. :I agree that the political parties are failing their duty to identify where they are on a spectrum. What we need to decide, wherever in the world we are, is what spectrum we want to use. Collectivism vs. Individualism is a false choice. You can't live without growing your own food or buying food from the growers. You can't drink water unless you get it yourself, or collectively build a water system along with your neighbors. :If my tax dollars are helping me to live in a cleaner, safer and better world, the taxes I pay are worth it. I can't build my own road, my own sewer system, my own Internet. We collect resources that enable these things to be designed, built and maintained under our feet. And we designate the people whom we want to manage those collective resources. :A better spectrum for me is from David Korten. Do we want to live in an imperial society, where we have only those choices that we are allowed, or a community, where our needs are met and we are free to explore our potential as individuals? :Hope others catch the bug and post. This is fun. Chadlupkes 03:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC) : Re: Spectrums :I think that the liberal/conservative spectrum is a much abused simplification of a much more complicated landscape (which is made apparent by the fact that there is nothing "conservative" about our current conservative leadership (they are, in fact, the most radical leadership we've had in a very long time), even though they ostensibly represent a fairly large segment of our population, much of which really is quite conservative). However, the "individualist" versus "collectivist" isn't much better, though at least it defines something more tangible. : :For one things, the spectrum of individualism versus collectivism doesn't really reflect most of the political issues in, e.g., the United States currently. Certainly there are issues that are classically part of that spectrum that are entirely relevant to us now, but most of them are not really part of the media-run political debates going on in this country. Abortion, gun control, foreign policy, oil dependence, church-state separation, same-sex marriage, etc., aren't really defined in terms of individualism/collectivism, and you'll find individualists and collectivists all over the spectrum on each of those issues. Issues that do involve that spectrum aren't really part of that debate. Health care, for instance, was never really brought up in the last presidential election, even though most people in this country think our current health care sucks and that it is a pressing issue. Some issues show a reversal of the normal liberal (collectivist)/conservative (individualist) dichotomy, such as our high-level of military spending, which is a collectivist activity, but is mostly supported by conservatives. : :Instead of trying to bring all of political discussion down to a simple spectrum, such as liberal - conservative or individualist - collectivist, I think it makes more sense to think of each concern as its own spectrum, and to associate various positions along that spectrum with the parties (Dem/Rep) and political leanings (Left/Right). Take abortion, for example. Individualism and collectivism don't particularly apply. Arch-liberals believe that until birth, women should have the option of terminating the pregnancy, and they see this as a civil rights issue. Arch-conservatives, on the other hand, believe that from the moment of conception, the life of the fetus must be protected at almost all costs, and see this as a matter of, well, murder. The bulk of the country believes that abortion should be legal within certain limits.